If you are reading this article, I would like to thank you for your time. On July 29, 2020, I wrote an article, titled Why we rally around the West Indies (feel free to read if you haven’t). After writing that article, I was asked; Where do we draw the line and stop Cricket West Indies (CWI), formerly known as the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) and the players from taking our support for granted? Where do we draw the line and demand professionalism?
These questions are constantly discussed since the end of the West Indies golden era. I wrote a Facebook post in the past calling for a boycott of cricket, so the effects will be felt financially by CWI and send a message to the players that we will not support mediocrity. However, we are all fully aware that CWI is not as financially sound as India, England and Australia, but neither is Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and other nations of the likes. So as West Indies supporters we expect to see the dedication and hard work from whoever dons the marron and gold. We all work hard in our respective jobs, to buy tickets, memorabilia and pay for cable to support CWI, we expect it to be reciprocated.
However, the answers to those questions should not be solely on CWI, even though they have to take their share of the blame. There is more money in the modern game, and the players are aware of this. Players are also aware that many former players are bankrupt, or never made enough money to support their families and died as paupers. In the past, many players depended on county cricket in England, Kerry Packer and the infamous rebel tour of South Africa, for money. If those players had depended solely on the wages from CWI there would be many more financially unstable former players.
Since more money is involved, many players, as we say in Guyana, are “looking for it”. I have no problem with players "looking for it" and providing for their families. I have a problem with them being forced to choose between providing for their families and playing for the West Indies. Many players were forced to choose between a million-dollar contract from the Indian Premier League (IPL) and a few thousand dollars from CWI. Let us all be honest, who would not want to be paid more for their labour?
To be fair CWI is not financially equipped as other major cricket boards. In Australia, England, and India players can comfortably support their families by playing first-class cricket, they don’t have to make their national teams for financial stability. How many players in the West Indies can afford to sustain themselves on regional cricket alone? I see Guyanese players working regular nine to five jobs and having to fight for time off to represent Guyana. I can only assume the same occur in the other territories, I could be wrong.
I say this because CWI can offer so much and no more. But why should players have to choose between providing for their families and playing for the country that they love? To use FIFA as an example, this is not the case. In the world of football, FIFA makes it compulsory for clubs to release players when they have an international commitment, such as International Friendlies, the African Nations Cup, Copa America, and the UEFA European Championship. As a result, professional football teams plan and prepare for this and players are never in the dilemma of having to choose. In fact, modern football players generally play for their countries out of love and their clubs for their livelihood. That is not to say they would not develop a love for their clubs, but players change clubs regularly.
In addition, FIFA is more merit-based where qualification for the World Cup (WC) is open to every member, except the hosts. The International Cricket Council (ICC) still has a system where the traditional test teams are automatically selected, and the others must qualify. Most international federations have mainly full members and a small number of junior members, but the ICC has just 12 full members and 93 associates. Despite a programmed expansion that started in 1998, the status of this elite has always been protected.
Figure 1. Full and associate members in various sports
The figure shows the proportion of full and associate members of various sports.
https://playthegame.org/news/news-articles/2019/0572_cricket-gets-smaller-before-it-can-grow/
This model is old and arcane and needs to be reformed urgently if cricket is to truly reach its global potential. The cream will always rise to the top. Brazil, Germany, Argentina, etc. are teams who usually qualify for the WC but to date, only Brazil has never failed to qualify for a WC. As a result, the competitive nature is always high, and the smaller teams always believe that they have a chance, for example, Croatia was the 2018 WC finalists. FIFA also gives money to developmental programs in small underfunded nations. Using this model FIFA generated at least US$500M annually since 2003(https://www.statista.com/statistics/268873/revenue-of-the-football-association-fifa/ ). In 2018 FIFA revenues reached as high as US$4.6B as a result of the WC that year. In comparison, the ICC generated US$602M in revenues in 2019, also a WC year (https://resources.pulse.icc-cricket.com/ICC/document/2020/04/30/04d18758-68a4-47f1-8f28-d8acdc78c0ef/ICC-Consolidated-Financial-Statements-31-December-2019.pdf ).
In conclusion, as much as it is difficult and upsetting to endure another West Indies defeat, if the ICC does not reform, cricket as a global brand will be reduced to rubble. I agree with Sandipan Banerjee, he states that if the unhealthy wealth gap is not sorted out by the ICC, the quality, as well as the competitiveness of teams such as the West Indies, are bound to be affected, which will result in one-sided fixtures. And, in the long run, neither the fans nor the broadcasters and sponsors would be interested to invest their time and money in such a non-competitive scenario (https://www.cricketsoccer.com/2018/06/28/change-in-iccs-revenue-sharing-model-can-make-cricket-more-sustainable-for-smaller-test-nations/).